On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 02:54:53AM -0600, Christopher G. Stach II wrote: > ----- "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 09:04:20AM -0500, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: > > > Why would one use ConVirt instead of the management tools included in > > > RHEL and/or CentOS? What's the difference? > > > > RHEL/CentOS doesn't provide web-based management.. or even easy > > multi-host / cluster management of virtualization nodes. > > > > -- Pasi > > Are there any *good* reasons? (Since I really hate commercials, I feel > compelled to present my contrarian viewpoint.) ConVirt addresses a pretty > small portion of the virtualization landscape, and it consists of only a few > significant parts: > > 1. Do what other free and open tools already do. > 2. Slap a web interface on it! > 3. Spam lists. > 4. Rope in suckers. > > The suggestion that a web interface is a value add to an infrastructure issue > is at least insulting. You could attempt to slap a web interface on a fuel > injection system (or maybe at least give access to the magic a la > MegaSquirt), but a bunch of assholes are still going to blow something up. > It's not going to give any admin worth his or her salt a boner because it's > not readily scriptable and it amounts to candy for retards. Secondly, > everything else that it does is already there. If you can't do it, you > shouldn't be touching the machines. > > The tool may or may not address some vanilla installations (if there ever was > one), but if you need something like that, you are probably better off with > EC2 or at least letting someone else handle it. >
You have some good points here. An user API is absolutely a requirement for system like this, to let the powerusers/admins script things and create custom management scripts. Web interface frontend should/could be using the same API! -- Pasi _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
